275 replies

But Less isn't sexy! Any pleb can do "less". Less is for the masses. How is an audiophile supposed to laud it over the "ordinary people".
Yes...and no.
I love the look on audiophile faces when they hear the sound out of my Harbeths with a just a Connect Amp tucked away almost out of sight:). One reaches a stage when less is sexy - it can be very Zen! I have now moved the Amp to the bedroom where I can better use its line in to improve the TV sound while doing music duty too, but even now the main system has just a Connect wired to analog inputs of a small Denon all in one box that delivers the same sound as before. And as it was when the main system had a SACD player, and Quad pre/power boxes in it, with the Connect wired to the digital input of the SACD player.
And the wife is thrilled to bits because she has the now redundant component rack entirely for her use. I have to admit it looks a lot better for that.

If this is the case, then why can't trained listeners in ABX testing hear a difference between cables when everything else in the system remains constant? Meaning that your "tuned circuit which will change the audio performance" remains exactly the same, except for the cables. Surely, even with "subtle" differences, these so-called "golden eared" audiophiles should be able to discern the differences without knowing which cable they are listening to, right?

Because many times there's an X-Y Comparator (switch) that will impart it's own signature to the system.

Hey, you don't have to use good cables or even mediocre cables. This is the Sonos forum where a little box is playing back compressed music from compressed sources. When you get back to the analog world there's a bigger difference.

Because many times there's an X-Y Comparator (switch) that will impart it's own signature to the system.

Hey, you don't have to use good cables or even mediocre cables. This is the Sonos forum where a little box is playing back compressed music from compressed sources. When you get back to the analog world there's a bigger difference.

Sonos need not play "compressed music from compressed sources", it can play FLAC, which is completely transparent to the source. It can also play WAV, which is the source, as proven by both the Nyquist/Shannon sampling theorem and physical experimentation. But thanks (again) for the condescension. :rolleyes:

As to your claims that the switch "that will impart it's own signature to the system", if a switch can impart that much of a "signature", why spend thousands on a cable? Certainly the temperature of the room, the carpets on the floor, the accoustical treatments on the walls, the postioning of your head, etc. etc. (all things which have been proven to actually affect sound) are far and away more important than spending thousands on an effect that is so easily masked by a little ol' switch, hmmm?

Also, does the fact that the effect is so easily masked not lay waste to the claims that the difference between lamp cord and $7000 cables is "night and day" as claimed by the flowery prose in the decidedly biased audiophile press? So which is it? Is it a "night and day" difference that one can justify spending thousands and thousands of dollars on, or is it so subtle as to be masked by any and all testing methodology, no matter how carefully constructed?

Or is it just the fact that some people have more money than brains, and like to flaunt it in the face of others when measuring the "size" of their system?

When you get back to the analog world there's a bigger difference.
I assume that by analog you mean vinyl - if so, there isn't any argument to offer against a belief that this stone age tech provides for better SQ than digital once it is jazzed up with NASA engineering appearance.

Docmark.. this is not an audiophile forum.. There are 3 basic types here: Sonos fanboys, that believe that Sonos can do no wrong. Those that need help with their Sonos setups of one sort or another. And those that believe if it can't be measured, or DBT'ed or ABX'ed then it doesn't exist or it's the placebo effect..

Am quite happy to leave you with your Connect and lamp cable. I'm sure that you have just a beautiful system.

And we are quite happy to leave you paying extreme amounts of money for something which adds nothing to the sound you are able to hear. So I guess that leaves us with a bunch of happy people . . . and some of those people have a lot more money left in their pockets.

And we are quite happy to leave you paying extreme amounts of money for something which adds nothing to the sound you are able to hear. So I guess that leaves us with a bunch of happy people . . . and some of those people have a lot more money left in their pockets. :D
Lots of happy people, Xmas is early this year:).
To be fair though, it is quite possible that listening pleasure is enhanced for some people when the kit looks good, and one knows that it is well built/ engineered even if one knows it may be over engineered - psychoacoustics is a well researched and acknowledged subject of study. And those of us with money in our pockets usually tend to spend it something else that may be non essential too - I know I am guilty of that often. Others reading such threads can decide the way they want to go based on what floats their individual boats.

Lots of happy people, Xmas is early this year:).
To be fair though, it is quite possible that listening pleasure is enhanced for some people when the kit looks good, and one knows that it is well built/ engineered even if one knows it may be over engineered - psychoacoustics is a well researched and acknowledged subject of study. And those of us with money in our pockets usually tend to spend it something else that may be non essential too - I know I am guilty of that often. Others reading such threads can decide the way they want to go based on what floats their individual boats.

It is absolutely true that the psycho-accoustic effect may be at work here. Which is fine, if that is your thing. If it sounds better because psychologically you assume sound quality increases with the amount of money you spend, fine. Just don't tell me that it is actually better outside of your own psychological biases.

I assume that by analog you mean vinyl - if so, there isn't any argument to offer against a belief that this stone age tech provides for better SQ than digital once it is jazzed up with NASA engineering appearance.

This "stone age tech" has a frequency response of DC - daylight, no Nyquist Theorem required. Sonos is just a very convenient internet radio player.

But ErikM's comment about this being a forum of fanboys and help requests is dead on.

This "stone age tech" has a frequency response of DC - daylight, no Nyquist Theorem required. Sonos is just a very convenient internet radio player.

But ErikM's comment about this being a forum of fanboys and help requests is dead on.

You still haven't answered the following:

As to your claims that the switch "that will impart it's own signature to the system", if a switch can impart that much of a "signature", why spend thousands on a cable? Certainly the temperature of the room, the carpets on the floor, the accoustical treatments on the walls, the postioning of your head, etc. etc. (all things which have been proven to actually affect sound) are far and away more important than spending thousands on an effect that is so easily masked by a little ol' switch, hmmm?

Also, does the fact that the effect is so easily masked not lay waste to the claims that the difference between lamp cord and $7000 cables is "night and day" as claimed by the flowery prose in the decidedly biased audiophile press? So which is it? Is it a "night and day" difference that one can justify spending thousands and thousands of dollars on, or is it so subtle as to be masked by any and all testing methodology, no matter how carefully constructed?

Surely someone who is as versed as you in the fine art of audiophoolia will be able to answer a question posed by us brainwashed "fanboys", right? Or are you just here to call people names?

Good science does not claim to have all of the answers. New ideas are always welcome and will be incorporated into the body of knowledge -- after they are vetted. Audiophiles seem to have trouble with the vetting process. Any discussions between the science types and the audiophiles degenerates into "my dog is better than your dog", everyone goes home mad, and nothing is learned. It's a shame.

While I am not a regular, compulsive attendee at high end shows, I find most of the rooms to be as dreary as their neighbors' rooms. Each of the designers seems to have some sort of axe to grind and will optimize his (yes, I say "his" because I have never seen a female presenter at one of these shows -- and typically the guiding light is a lone wolf) design along this coordinate, making classic mistakes along other coordinates. They all have some sort of story to tell, but in my opinion the results are usually dreary. Occasionally, a team will show up with something interesting. The best teams either overtly talk about their room acoustic treatments or quietly just apply them. There haven't been any true breakthroughs in amplifier design for a while, it's a matter of attention to detail and following well established design rules. Analog vs. Digital? Regardless of the number of bits, poor grounding techniques will wreck a bunch of bits and that 24 bit design might not perform any better than a 14 bit design. And, in my observation, relatively few individuals know how to correctly set up a turntable.

[indent]Lander: However long gone you may be from AR, you maintain strong views about hi-fi. In fact, you initially balked at doing this interview because you feel that many aspects of high-end audio, such as expensive cables and equipment break-in, are meaningless.

Villchur: The concluding paragraph of a talk I once gave at an Acoustical Society meeting sums that up. I'll read you part of it: "Scientific method allows investigators to form hypotheses in any way they please: out of a cold assembly of facts, intuition, or a drunken stupor....Once a hypothesis is proposed, however, it must be demonstrated rigorously. The audio discipline needs to be brought back to the world of reason."

Lander: Is there room in that world for subjectivity?

Villchur: Objective measurements in audio are primary, but they're useless unless they've been subjectively validated as predictors of musical accuracy. The validation method we used at Acoustic Research was the live-vs-recorded, or simulated live-vs-recorded, comparison. The standard I use today is set by our Woodstock chamber music concerts.[/indent]

If you have some time, read this and the companion Roy Allison interview. I bumped into Roy at a couple of shows and it was amusing when a self styled audiophile "expert" challenged him. Roy was always very polite, but there were no prisoners or hostages after Roy was done with his concise reply.

And we are quite happy to leave you paying extreme amounts of money for something which adds nothing to the sound you are able to hear. So I guess that leaves us with a bunch of happy people . . . and some of those people have a lot more money left in their pockets. :D

Oh jgatie, you have no idea what kind of system I listen to. But I bet you've got nothing like it. For me, Sonos is just a glorified internet radio, nothing special about it. I find these heated arguments amusing. Hope you enjoy the extra money in your pockets. I imagine it lets you buy a lot of extra junk.

This thread demonstrates why the Connect Amp is such a brilliant little box. No need to tie oneself into knots about things like external DACs!
Now that I am able to use it the way it is meant to be used by leaving it on all the time, I have realised the benefit of the auto sensing line in connection on it, for a largish lcd TV and Spendor S3/5 speakers in the bedroom. Very good music from the net/NAS, with the added bonus of getting free 2 channel HT using the same speakers for TV without any effort other than stopping the music and turning the TV on.

Oh jgatie, you have no idea what kind of system I listen to. But I bet you've got nothing like it.

I don't think any of us would want to as it appears to have turned you into an arrogant *** but if it pleases you to massage your ego in that way then feel free to illuminate our lives with details of your amazing system, you obviously have some serious anxieties you need to ease, so carry on...

It is just home audio, we seem to losing perspective here:).
I can understand the heat in a discussion between Darwinists and Creationists, and though this one is on similar lines, it isn't worth the fight.

Sonos need not play "compressed music from compressed sources", it can play FLAC, which is completely transparent to the source. It can also play WAV, which is the source

I'm going to be pedantic and disagree here. WAV has no right to be considered "the original" or "the source" than any other file format. It is uncompressed, but that's about it. WAV is an encoded file format, just like any other. You could just as easily use AIFF.

In fact I would argue that, as both FLAC and WAV cannot be played by any DAC known to man without first being "decoded" info samples, they are functionally identical and equivalent. FLAC is just as valid a source as WAV.

Of course the level of decoding required by WAV is significantly less than FLAC, but decoding is needed in both cases. There is nothing about WAV that makes it a "purer" choice for audio.

This "stone age tech" has a frequency response of DC - daylight, no Nyquist Theorem required. Sonos is just a very convenient internet radio player..

Errm, that's not true at all. In fact it's completely false.

All practical implementations of analogue systems and media have very specific limitations on both lower and upper bandwidth. They also have very specific limitations with respect to dynamic range. In some cases (e.g. vinyl) these limitations are quite severe.

These characteristics of bandwidth and dynamic range are exactly the same for all audio whether it is derived from analogue and digital sources. It is possible, and valid, to freely and directly compare the specifications of analogue and digital systems based on these characteristics. Ultimately it all ends up as analogue because that is how we hear. Digital is merely a convenient format to encapsulate the audio.

But all practical audio systems, including our ears, have specific limits based on these fundamental characteristics. "DC to daylight" is a myth.

There are some ignorant people, of course, who believe that an analogue signal derived from an analogue source is, somehow, more continuous within these limits, more "analogue" than a signal derived from a digital source. And, of course, this is totally false: within the limits of bandwidth and amplitude, analogue audio derived from digital sources is just as continuous, just as "analogue" as audio derived from analogue sources. People who claim otherwise are merely showing their lack of clue about the fundamentals of audio.

Cookie policy

Cookie settings

We use 3 different kinds of cookies. You can choose which cookies you want to accept. We need basic cookies to make this site work, therefore these are the minimum you can select. You can always change your cookie preferences in your profile settings. Learn more about our cookies.